SBC and Closed Comunion

I certainly think an individual should examine himself as the scriptures command.

But the 11th Chapter explicit charges with local church with "guarding the ordinances." And Paul, in Chapter 5, raged at the church for putting up with the member who was openly involved in an affair. He told them not even to eat with the guy. The member was obviously attending the fellowship meals (at which communion was observed), and the church allowed it to happen. So much for making it an individual decision.

The local church must guard the integrity of its fellowship. Just as it sets the parameters of whom it will baptize and admit to membership, it must to the same with the Lord's Supper. The fact that it may do it imperfectly does not release them from the responsibility.

 

I tend to agree with Sag on this one. I do not police the table. I announce: "As baptized believers we will observe the Lord's Supper. Let a person examine themself and determine their eligibilty."

Mr. Spurgeon practiced open communion for all believers.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Tom, I agree with you in principle but I believe your passion for the local congregation is interfering with your objectivity. To get right to the point, I can't find any place we are told to "guard the ordinances." We are told to "keep the ordinances" (KJV only). All other translations tell us to hold to the traditions, or hold to the teachings. But not even the KJV says to guard the ordinances. Am I missing something?

Despite my inability to find anything directly about "guarding the ordinances", I agree that scripture taken as a whole places a responsibility on the church to exercise control over its membership and its practices. Otherwise we doing things in a disorderly way, which we are cautioned not to do. Therefore, our differences are not over whether we should exercise control over who receives communion but rather over where we should draw the line.

 

Yes, of course.

Let's take your example here. You have already agreed that the congregation may restrict the Lord's table. Nobody will want the man involved in a public illicit relationship to be admitted to the table. That's an easy one.

What about a man who has been disfellowshipped from his congregation,and he shows up at your church when you're taking communion. You don't know why he was kicked out. Do you invite him to participate?

Now, let's change the scenario a bit. The man has been disfellowshipped from your church, but shows up on Lord's Supper night. He's a professed baptized believer. He says he's reflected on things, examined himself, and is ready to take communion. Do you allow him to participate?

A Roman Catholic shows up. He was sprinkled, and believes his sprinkling is a means of grace. He's relying on his baptism (along with a few other things) to get him into heaven. He believes his baptism is valid. He has examined himself, is at peace with his soul. What do you do with him?

My point is that outside of our own congregation, we cannot know about other people's relationship to God. Ah, you may say, we can't even know that about our own members. Not exactly true. Your church has already passed judgment on a member's profession of faith, and admitted him to membership; and further, have observed his life.

That's why I think a local church should exercise some judgment.

All of us believe that the Lord's Table should be restricted in some way. We just disagree on what those restrictions should be. For me, those restrictions are driven by their connection to church discipline, and by my view of what the church is--which is, a local congregation only. The Universal Church does not exist.

 

What about a man who has been disfellowshipped from his congregation,and he shows up at your church when you're taking communion. You don't know why he was kicked out. Do you invite him to participate?

It is not my job nor that of my church to give an interview and determine a person's worthiness of partaking. Am I to ask every visitor if he or she has been disfellowshipped? Am I to ask if he or she has unconfessed or unrepentant sin in his or her life? It is our responsibility to teach participants the proper parameters and to help participants prepare. After that participant be blessed or beware.

 

The scriptures speak of taking communion unworthily. This is not a question of our worthiness. It deals with taking communion in an unworthy manner--sort of like the Corinthians were doing which Paul lambasted them for in Chapter 11.

The questions you have asked make my point exactly. Since church discipline cannot extend beyond the local congregation, and since we cannot know about those of other churches, the best practice is to restrict the Lord's table to fellow members of the local church. That way, asking the questions you ask is unnecessary.

 

We will just have to agree to disagree. I don't agree that restricting the Lord's Table to only fellow members is necessary for a local church. As I've already stated, the ultimate responsibility for participating in the Lord's Supper lies with the particpant and not the entire church body.

 

Sure, I understand. I appreciate the way you defend your position.

Maybe you stated your position before, but I can't remember. Do you place any restrictions at all on the Lord's table?

 

Now that's something I've NEVER heard of, an American Baptist Communist! :laugh:

 

1 Corinthians 11:34 "And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

For those who consider that closed communion is the only proper way to have a legitimate observance of the ordinance, do you think that Paul did not partake with the Corinthians when he returned to them? (assuming that he did make it there) I find it hard to imagine him being present during their communion, 'setting things in order' and then teaching them why he would not partake with them. Do you think he never participated in the communion with them in the 18 months that he was there? This just seems unrealistic to me, and to arrive at a restriction that it seems Paul himself would not have observed.

 

Originally Posted by Tom Butler
The first two paragraphs reinforce my point: "The Baptists of America are almost universally strict communists..."

Oooops!

 

On a serious note, during a mission trip to Romania, our young interpreter told us that in 1989, when the Communist dictator Ceausescu was overthrown and killed, three deacons in her church (Baptist) disappeared.

It turns out that these Communists had infiltrated her church, and had so deceived the members that they were elected as deacons. When Ceausescu fell, they knew they would be found out, so they fled.

So, humblethinker, we don't have American Baptist Communists, but we did have Romanian Baptist Communists. I do not know whether they were closed communion communists or not.

 

Thank you for sharing such a intreagueing bit of history. Makes me so grateful for church and being here in America.